Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

With regard to evidence, for many of us, it is not about evidence and creating some sort of really difficult system for people, it is also about recognition of their testimony. It goes without saying that there will be people when they apply, no matter what the application processes look like, who will want to continue to tell what happened to them. Sometimes, that alone is evidence enough - someone's personal testimony, including around the racial abuse and the vaccine trials. It is not creating this really difficult and burdensome process that is being proposed. A two-track system would not be proposed at all if the redress was adequate. As the redress is so low, at €5,000, we know that people with complex needs are not going to be able to use that to meet some of their additional needs, whether they are psychological needs or around disability, literacy or whatever it is. If the redress was larger there would be no need for this. As it is such a low rate, we are trying to find ways to create a situation where people left with more complex needs can find a way to be able to have them met. In relation to their access to healthcare, they were set something else whereby it became adversarial for them. The other point is to create the time criteria and to create a non-adversarial position, but then the adversarial position is being created by saying that if a person was in a home for less than six months, he or she does not qualify for those additional benefits. Again, there seems to be a double use of particular things that are used differently in different sections of the Bill. No matter how long they spent in the homes, everybody should have access to medical cards. That is addressed in the last amendment in this group. There is a lack of coherence between the principles that underpin different sections of the Bill that provide for a benefit.